Analysis Of The Offences Against The Person Act 1861

“An Act to consolidate and amend the Statute Law of England and Ireland relating to Offences against the Person.” [6th August 1861] (Legislation.gov.uk, 2016)

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is an act of parliament that is upheld in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The act defines how the law is implemented relating to ‘offences against the person’; in this instance meaning offences of violence. The act covers a variety of statues relating to different forms of violence ranging from assault to rape and murder. The idea of the Act was to consolidate all the previous statues and simplify the law.

The word ‘assault’ by definition of the oxford dictionary means to “make a physical attack on” (Oxforddictionaries.com, 2016)

The mens rea, or guilty mind, for assault is when the defendant intentionally causes the victim to fear harm in the knowledge that this would be the result of said action. The actus reus, or the guilty act, is the apprehension of inflicting such violence. For the victim to experience both the mens rea and the actus reas there in no need for actual physical contact between the victim and the defendant, all that is required is that the victim felt the violence was going to happen. This means that regardless of whether a threat was serious or not, an assault has been committed if the victim has suffered fear. The word ‘immediate’ used here is an example of why The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 is outdated. In most cases the word ‘immediate’ is taken in the literal approach however the courts have found on some occasions to apply the golden rule to interpreting what ‘immediate’ was intended to mean in case law. In the case of R v Meade and Belt (1823), Holyroyd J

20 constitutes the lesser offence with a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment, however there is the possibility of a conviction under section 18. The mens rea is the deciding factor when determining which section the defendant is to be charged under. The mens rea of section 20 is that the defendant had the intent to cause harm which could reasonably be foreseen that the actions would bring forwards these results of reckless, intentional harm. The Actus Rea for the act is similar under both sections though one key difference is that the offence under section 20 must be committed against another person (Find Laws, Legal Information, News & Solicitors - Findlaw UK, 2015). In the case of R v Lloyd (1989) the defendant kicked another rugby player whilst he was lying defenceless on the ground, resulting in the victims cheekbone breaking. The court held that whilst rugby “involved forceful contact, it was not a licence for thuggery.” The defendant was found guilty of GBH and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment. (Sixthformlaw.info,